GHC_RFP_Questions_&_Answers,_Round_2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 50 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Household Goods (HHG) Relocation Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HTC711-19-R-R004
About this file
This is a request for information related to household goods relocation services. The United States Transportation Command is seeking market research and capabilities information from small businesses, existing contractors, and new entrants for household goods relocation under a potential new contract. Respondents are asked to provide information on their services and pricing to facilitate acquisition planning. No proposals or commitments are being solicited at this time. The information received will be used for planning purposes only and all proprietary documentation will be handled according to government regulations. There is no response due date or award date indicated, as this is a request for information and not a full solicitation.
GHC RFP Questions & Answers, Round 2
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Household Goods (HHG) Relocation Services has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
GHC RFP Q&A
| Q# | Q&A Round | Topic | RFP Document & Para | Question | Answer |
| 1 | Round 1 | General | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors | Can you provide or direct me to the office(s) that can provide a simple organizational chart of your Global Household Goods structure? | See 'HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-1, Paragraph (b) for Government POCs. |
| 2 | Round 1 | RFP | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 48, Volume II, Technical Capability Proposal | Please confirm the Transit Time Spreadsheet File is outside the page limits for Volume II and should be included as an appendix or separate file with the proposal submission. | Per Amendment 01, appendix C(i), Transit Time Tables does not count against the Technical Capability Proposal page limitation. |
| 3 | Round 1 | RFP | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 48, Volume II, Technical Capability Proposal | This section states "The Offeror shall submit a detailed operational approach (in paragraph format) which demonstrates how the Offeror will meet the PWS requirements identified below". Does the government intend that bidder responses include only a discussion of those items listed (items 1 – 4) and not include discussion of the broader requirements related to personnel administration, pre-move services, physical move services and post move services specified in the PWS? | The Government will only evaluate the Offeror's detailed approach demonstrating how the Offeror will meet the PWS requirements specifically identified in Addendum to 52.212-1. |
| 4 | Round 1 | RFP | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 48, Volume II, Technical Capability Proposal | Currently the RFP requires that we are to address all PWS paragraphs, and then lists specific ones for inclusion. Is your intent to have offeror’s respond only to the PWS paragraphs that are specifically referenced? | The Government will only evaluate the Offeror's detailed approach demonstrating how the Offeror will meet the PWS requirements specifically identified in Addendum to 52.212-1. |
| 5 | Round 1 | Technical Capability | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 48, Volume II, Technical Capability, Attachment 9, SB Participation Commitment Document | Will Attachment 9 be moved to Volume II? Will that count against the page limitation? | Yes, Attachment 9 will be moved to Volume II. Per Amendment 01, Attachment 9 will not count against the Technical Capability Proposal page limitation. |
| 6 | Round 1 | Technical Capability | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 48-50, Volume II, Technical Capability | Does the Government want to see all the PWS capabilities or just those specifically called out in the solicitation Volume II? | While a discussion of the broader requirements is not prohibited, the Government will only consider the Offeror's detailed approach demonstrating how the Offeror will meet the PWS requirements specifically identified in Addendum to 52.212-1. |
| 7 | Round 1 | Technical Capability | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 49-50, Volume II, Technical Capability Proposal | Is it permissible to insert video link(s) of processes in our technical proposal? If so, can you confirm that evaluators will be able to access the link(s) or provide direction to enable evaluators to access the link(s)? | No. Please see 'HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-1, for instructions on technical proposal submissions. |
| 8 | Round 1 | Past Performance | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 50, Volume III, Past Performance | For the entity submitting proposal or joint venture, can any/either contractor have the experience? | Yes |
| 9 | Round 1 | Past Performance | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 50, Volume III, Past Performance Proposal | Will the government extend the due date of the past performance questionnaires to the due date of the proposals? | Initially, Past Performance Questionnaires were due on 14 October; however, the Government is amending the suspense to the proposal due date via Amendment 01. |
| 10 | Round 1 | Past Performance | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 50, Volume III, Past Performance Proposal | Where should current carriers submit their PPQs for the Tender of Service Program? | Please see "HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-1, Volume III - Past Performance Proposal, which states "Each reference shall include the following: company/division name, description of service and a detailed narrative of relevance to this requirement, contracting agency, customer, current points of contact to include name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address for each reference..." "Past Performance Questionnaire. Offerors shall complete Section 1 of the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 5) and send to each of the references included in the proposal." |
Please keep in mind that IAW FAR clause 52.212-2 of the RFP, "The Government will evaluate each Offeror's past performance information using questionnaires and performance information independently obtained from Government or commercial sources."
| 11 | Round 1 | Past Performance | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 50, Volume III, Past Performance Proposal | Since this a commercial item services, does at least one of the references need to be the movement of household goods? | No, there is no requirement that your past performance must include the movement of household goods; however, it only behooves the Offeror to demonstrate their capability to demonstrate the same scope, complexity, and magnitude as this solicitation requires. See 'HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-1, Volume III – Past Performance Proposal. |
| 12 | Round 1 | Past Performance | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 50, Volume III, Past Performance Proposal | Do the nine subcontractor references have to be nine different companies in regards to past performance? | No. |
| 13 | Round 1 | Past Performance | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 50, Volume III, Past Performance Proposal | What does the past performance volume entail (excluding the PPQs)? | See 'HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-1, Volume III – Past Performance Proposal. |
| 14 | Round 1 | Small Business Subcontracting | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, Small Business Goals | Are small business goal dollars only based on Tier 1 Small Business Subcontractors? | Yes, only Tier 1 Subcontracting dollars are applicable to the Subcontracting Goal. This contract has an additional requirement for a total of 40% Small Business Utilization at Tier 1, 2, and 3 as defined in the PWS, Para 1.2.1.2.2. |
| 15 | Round 1 | Appendix A | Appendix A, A.2.2.3 | Please clarify when successful testing for this capability is required? At contract award date or 30 days prior to contract base period one start date? | IAW Appendix A, A.2.2.3, successful testing shall be completed no later than 30 days prior to the contract base period year one (1) start date. |
| 16 | Round 1 | Phase-Out | Appendix A, A.4 | What does phase-out entail? | Phase-out consists of transitioning to a successor contractor at the end of the GHC period of performance. Please see PWS Appendix A Transition Phase-In Phase-Out, Section A4. |
| 17 | Round 1 | Appendix F | Appendix F, F.2 | Would the Government please provide the anticipated payment schedule date to the contractor once an accurate and complete invoice is submitted? Also, could you provide the average time to make payment under the current process? | IAW TPPS business rules, payment will be made to the prime within three Government business days upon receipt of a Government approved invoice. |
| 18 | Round 1 | Payment and Invoicing | Appendix F, F.3, Invoicing Instructions | Paragraph F.3 states “Once the Contracting Officer’s Representative approves the invoice request, the invoice request will transfer from the government-managed system to TPPS.” |
In the current environment, the PPSO has 3 GBDs to approve an invoice that meets all requirements. Please clarify Government approval time for invoices submitted in good order will be under the GHC, as this response time has an impact on cash flow projections for the contractor? What are the business rules concerning approvals?
| IAW TPPS business rules, payment will be made to the prime within three Government business days upon receipt of a Government approved invoice. | |||||
| 19 | Round 1 | Currency Adjustment | Appendix G, EPA Schedule | Does this program contain a currency adjustment? | There is no currency adjustment in GHC. |
| 20 | Round 1 | Currency Adjustment | Appendix G, EPA Schedule | How do we get compensated/adjusted if a country’s currency value changes drastically? | It is a business decision by the offeror on how to factor that into their rates. |
| 21 | Round 1 | EPA | Appendix G, EPA Schedule | Is fuel for air, vessel, trucking the same in your methodology? | The weekly fuel rate adjustment only applies to the domestic portion of any shipment. No other separate fuel adjustments will be provided under the contract. However, the deep sea foreign transportation index portion of the annual price adjustments does consider changes in fuel price for that index. |
| 22 | Round 1 | Total Evaluated Price | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | How do you come up with the TEP? | Data contained in the Data and Calculations section of Attachment 2 will be multiplied by the Offeror's corresponding proposed prices in Attachment 2. The resulting prices (except those identified within Attachment 2 as prices evaluated separately from TEP) will be added together to determine the TEP. |
| 23 | Round 1 | Pricing | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | Is Air pricing cubed based? | No, all shipping prices are based on cwt. Offerors are required to follow the pricing instructions for domestic and international shipping. If a shipment includes air, the shipment will not be priced differently than stated in Attachment 2. |
| 24 | Round 1 | Small Business Subcontracting | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | Of $100 spent on international move, how many attributes to domestic portion? | The amount that applies to domestic depends on the work that was done domestically by a U.S.company. In an international shipment, only the work completed domestically counts towards an offeror's small business subcontracting goals and requirements. |
| 25 | Round 1 | EPA | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | Can you explain how the GII percentages are listed in the solicitation when we don’t know the future years' percentages yet? | The percentages in the solicitation were derived from current and forecasted data published by IHS for the three pricing and purchasing indices (United States, Producer Price Index (PPI), Specialized Freight Trucking (62%) (less fuel); United States, PPI, Deep Sea Foreign Transportation of Freight (22%); and United States, PPI, Warehousing and Storage (16%)). |
| 26 | Round 1 | EPA | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | Is there a currency adjustment for work in foreign countries? | No. It is a business decision by the offeror on how to factor that into their rates. |
| 27 | Round 1 | EPA | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | Will management and counseling be adjusted based on the GII every year? | No. Shipment Management Services and Counseling Services (Tab 4a of Attachment 2) are proposed for each contract year and not adjusted using IHS Markit Pricing and Purchasing Industry Forecasting. |
| 28 | Round 1 | Accessorials | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | Why are many items previously identified as accessorials now not priced separately? | Reducing the number of accessorials reduces the layers of Government approvals in a Service Member's move which is projected to improve the quality of the move. |
| 29 | Round 1 | Pricing | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | Why have two separate rates for peak and nonpeak? | Separate rates for peak and nonpeak seasons was based on market research inputs from industry. |
| 30 | Round 1 | Pricing | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | Why come out with a completely different pricing strategy than current industry standard? | The GHC pricing structure, while somewhat different than the pricing structure in the current program, is in accordance with industry standards. The pricing structure was developed from analyzing market research, current program pricing stategies, other USTC FAR-based contract pricing structures, etc. The pricing strategy has been determined to be the most suitable for use under a FAR-based construct for both the Government and industry. |
| 31 | Round 1 | Pricing | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | Will there be a rebate opportunity within the pricing rate table? | The pricing rate table does not allow for an Offeror to include a rebate. Such considerations can be built into the Offeror's proposed rates. |
| 32 | Round 1 | General | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | Would it be acceptable to include an additional page explaining some of our assumptions if the Government rate table is confusing? | The pricing rate table does not allow for an Offeror to include assumptions. Offerors are required to fill out the pricing rate table as stated in the pricing instructions. |
| 33 | Round 1 | Pricing | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | Attachment #2 Total evaluated Price Instructions under 3d does not list Unaccompanied Baggage Pack and destination charges. However on pricing tabs “Other Price tabs” UB orign pack and Unpack are located there. Should it be separated out or not. | Unaccompanied baggage (UB) origin pack and UB destination unpack should be proposed as their own rates on tab 3d) Other International Prices. UB origin pack and UB destination unpack will be added under 3d - Other International Prices on tab 1a) Directions in Amendment 01. |
| 34 | Round 1 | EPA | Attachment 2, Pricing Rate Table | Current program is 100% fuel adjustment is passed to the person who purchased the fuel, will this still be the same under GHC? | IAW 252.247-7003, the Contractor shall pass through any motor carrier fuel-related surcharge adjustments to the person, corporation, or entity that directly bears the cost of fuel for shipment(s) transported under this contract. |
| 35 | Round 1 | Past Performance Questionnaire | Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire | The RFP states that questionnaires are due by due date of proposal, 28 Oct, but the questionnaire attachment states 14 Oct. Which date is the requirement? | Initially, Past Performance Questionnaires were due on 14 October; however, the Government is amending the suspense to the proposal due date via Amendment 01. |
| 36 | Round 1 | Past Performance Questionnaire | Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire | The Due Date of 14 October 2019 does not match the “no later than the offer due date/time” specified in the RFP (Page 50, Paragraph (A) 1. Please confirm the Past Performance Questionnaires are due by as indicated in the RFP Page 50. Does the government plan to start work on past performance for offerors who may decide ultimately not to submit a proposal at the 28 October deadline? If 14 October is required, please explain why submission two weeks prior to the proposal dues is required. | Initially, Past Performance Questionnaires were due on 14 October; however, the Government is amending the suspense to the proposal due date via Amendment 01. |
| 37 | Round 1 | Past Performance Questionnaire | Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire | Request that the PPQ due date be updated to match the due date of the RFP | Initially, Past Performance Questionnaires were due on 14 October; however, the Government is amending the suspense to the proposal due date via Amendment 01. |
| 38 | Round 1 | Evaluation | Attachment 6, Financial Information Questionnaire | How is the Government determining a prime contractor financially stable? | The Offeror is required to submit a Financial Information Questionnaire (Attachment 6), or 10-K, if publically traded, and the Government will make a determination on the responsibility of the potential awardee. |
| 39 | Round 1 | Small Business Subcontracting | Attachment 8, Small Business Subcontracting Plan | If we already have an approved Commercial Small Business Subcontracting plan, can we submit that? | Yes, as long as the services provided are similar to this requirement. |
| 40 | Round 1 | RFP | Contract Minimum/Maximum Quantity and Contract Value | Can the Government please clarify if a proposal submitted with a price of >$20B remains compliant for this Solicitation? | The Offeror's TEP and the Government's price analysis is separate from the maximum found on page 8 of the RFP. The Offeror’s proposed pricing will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine prices fair and reasonable. |
| 41 | Round 1 | Past Performance | FAR 52.212-2, Pg 54, Volume III, Past Performance Evaluation | Will non-use, suspended, get well letters, etc. be used when evaluating past performance? | IAW "HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-2, Factor 3 - Past Performance, the Government will evaluate each Offeror’s past performance information using questionnaires and performance information independently obtained from Government or commercial sources. |
| 42 | Round 1 | Past Performance | FAR 52.212-2, Pg 54, Volume III, Past Performance Evaluation | What is a neutral past performance rating? Can't an Offeror just say they have no past performance to therefore be rated as "Acceptable"? | IAW 'HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-1, Volume III – Past Performance Proposal, "In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered 'acceptable.'" Offerors must be truthful. USTC can review information independently obtained from Government or commercial sources. |
| 43 | Round 1 | Past Performance - Magnitude | FAR 52.212-2, Pg 54, Volume III, Past Performance Evaluation | Will you assign magnitude thresholds for each of the relevancy ratings? | Magnitude thresholds will not be assigned for each relevancy rating tier. The Government will follow the criteria outlined in HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-2, Factor 3 - Past Performance, Paragraph 2. |
| 44 | Round 1 | Past Performance - Magnitude | FAR 52.212-2, Pg 54, Volume III, Past Performance Evaluation | For evaluation purposes, the Government has defined relevancy in terms of scope, magnitude, and complexity [RFP p. 54], with the Government assessing relevancy in the form of one relevance rating based on the aggregate of all references. The magnitude of HHG relocation services is specified at such a high level (50,000 household shipments per month domestically and 35,000 shipments per month internationally) as to limit competition and place all but the very largest haulers at a distinct disadvantage. Insofar as the RFP already includes a major subfactor (Subfactor 2) dedicated explicitly to the offeror’s approach to secure sufficient capacity to meet peak season move volume, will the Government reconsider and revise the past performance magnitude criterion to a more reasonable (lower) level? | The Government erroneously listed these volumes as monthly, vice annually. |
Please see Amendment 01 for revision to the definition of magnitude.
45 Round 1 Past Performance - Magnitude FAR 52.212-2, Pg 54, Volume III, Past Performance Evaluation With regard to Factor 3 – Past Performance, Item 2, Table 2, the USG final RFP states “Magnitude HHG relocation services for 50,000 or more household shipments per month domestically and 35,000 or more household shipments per month internationally.
When examining publicly available industry data regarding the size and capacity of major domestic transportation service providers, it is evident that NO single entity is currently executing more than 50,000 moves annually – let alone monthly. The Allied Van Lines web site quotes 750,000 moves over the past 15 years – or 50,000 moves PER YEAR, not per month. Unigroup as a whole (comprised of 7 corporate entities such as United, Mayflower and others) reveals annual revenue of $$1.7B annually. At an average domestic commercial relocation cost of $9,000, Unigroup’s total portfolio equates to 15,000 moves per month. Mayflowers website quotes 20,000 moves per year. Accordingly, it follows that no industry provider can demonstrate the USG-requested 50,000 CONUS and 35,000 OCONUS moves-per-month as a corporate entity, when in fact any bidder’s aggregate capacity will be achieved through bundling of total available capacity in the marketplace. Further, it is not necessary to TEAM to harness the 50,000 moves, when in fact the capacity of the entire US domestic market is readily available to the winner (as it is now), post award.
With these facts in mind, will the USG consider removing the 50,000 moves per month aggregate metric as it unnecessarily restricts competition and causes bidders to artificially team to meet the number without taking into account how such volume is appropriately distributed to small business as part of a larger SB subcontracting plan? To meet the required SB participation goals may well require a network of providers significantly larger than the limitation posed by nine past performance citations for subcontractors to aggregate the necessary volume to meet peak season capacity (which of course is in the range of 50,000 moves per month) AND meet the 40% of contract value SB target.
The Government erroneously listed these volumes as monthly, vice annually.
Please see Amendment 01 for revision to the definition of magnitude.
46 Round 1 Past Performance - Magnitude FAR 52.212-2, Pg 54, Volume III, Past Performance Evaluation The evaluation of the relevancy of the magnitude of past performance cites “50,000 or more household shipments per month domestically and 35,000 or more household shipments per month internationally” as the standard to be judged very relevant. While the total peak volume may approach 50,000 moves per month in peak season, the current HHG relocation volume is not managed as a single or even multiple contracts. The two largest DoD move managers manage less than 30% of monthly moves each (in terms of volume, tonnage, and cost), and other move managers manage much less. No single van line handles more than 20% of the monthly DoD move volume. So to set the “relevancy bar” at such a high level requires bidders to add teammates to bolster their past performance move metrics but is of little relevance in terms of the prime’s ability to manage, plan, execute, and provide customer support for 50,000 moves per month. As described, relevancy could easily devolve into a numbers game rather than a realistic and comparable basis for assessing past performance and assessing risk. Moreover, the magnitude criterion is silent on other aspects of past performance magnitude, such as managing a global billion-dollar prime contract, or transitioning 500 or more employees, or integrating and operating and IT solution with a potential user base > 250,000 users during the year. Will the Government revisit and expand the magnitude standard for relevancy to encourage competition and better reflect other important aspects of past performance that are directly relevant to the assessment of relevance? The Government erroneously listed these volumes as monthly, vice annually.
Please see Amendment 01 for revision to the definition of magnitude.
47 Round 1 Past Performance - Magnitude FAR 52.212-2, Pg 54, Volume III, Past Performance Evaluation The current RFP standard for past performance relevancy is a magnitude of 50,000 domestic and 35,000 OCONUS moves. These numbers were likely chosen because they represent the total volume of DoD moves in peak season. But in today’s HHG relocation model, this volume of moves are performed and supported by more than 4,000 companies (~900 of whom are SCACs). It’s not responsive to the nature of this bid to require a team, which is limited to 3 of their own projects and up to 9 subcontractor projects – to meet that “high bar” that was based on the total volume managed and performed by literally thousands of companies. With an understandably limited number of projects that can be cited, offerors will be motivated to choose teammates based on volume of moves the company can cite on a single contract rather than based on quality. This is not in the best interests of USTRANSCOM, Servicemembers, or small businesses.
As currently specified, a local mover or trucking company who has never touched a single DoD move but can claim 20,000 local COD moves in a month would be rated more relevant than a firm that has provided HHG relocation services for 10,000 interstate DoD moves with the requisite adherence to DoD’s policies and processes for counseling, survey, inventory, packing, hauling, customer support, invoicing, and claims processing. We recommend a more reasonable standard for past performance magnitude that reflects the reality of the current way of doing business and appropriately assesses performance relevancy, e.g., HHG relocation services for 10,000 interstate DoD moves per month.
The Government erroneously listed these volumes as monthly, vice annually.
Please see Amendment 01 for revision to the definition of magnitude.
48 Round 1 Past Performance - Magnitude FAR 52.212-2, Pg 54, Volume III, Past Performance Evaluation Why is the Government requiring past performance quantities far exceeding actual volumes in regards to magnitude? Past performance is requiring 50K moves which is way more than surge monthly moves. The Government erroneously listed these volumes as monthly, vice annually.
Please see Amendment 01 for revision to the definition of magnitude.
| 49 | Round 1 | Evaluation | FAR 52.212-2, Volume III, Past Performance | Is the overall Past Performance Proposal given overall Acceptable/Unacceptable rating? | The Government will assign an overall Past Performance rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. |
| 50 | Round 1 | Small Business Subcontracting | General | How do you define a woman-owned business? | At least 51% directly owned and controlled by one or more women who are U.S. Citizens. |
| 51 | Round 1 | Small Business Subcontracting | General | Will we be rated negatively in CPARS if we don’t meet the small business goals? | The Government reserves the right to take this information into consideration when assigning your CPARS rating. If you don’t meet your goals, you need to indicate your rationale on why you are not meeting goals, and what steps you are taking to achieve the goals. |
| 52 | Round 1 | General | General | Do we have to submit financial statements? | No. |
| 53 | Round 1 | Contract Award | General | Does the awardee have to be an IT company, sealift or trucking company? | No. To receive award, the Offeror must (1) be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, (2) conform to all required terms and conditions, and (3) represent a best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. |
| 54 | Round 1 | Contract Award | General | When the base period starts, will that be full service military moves? | No. USTC will follow a phased-in approach as detailed in PWS Appendix A Transition Phase-In Phase-Out, Section A3. |
| 55 | Round 1 | Small Business Subcontracting | General | Can you claim more than one category? For example, we are a veteran-owned & woman-owned small business. | No. You have to determine which one category you want to claim. |
| 56 | Round 1 | Small Business Subcontracting | General | Are small business goals rated in CPARS? | Small business subcontracting will be rated IAW FAR 42.1503. |
| 57 | Round 1 | Proposal Submission | General | Is there a process to request an extension for the RFP submission date? | Submit any requests via e-mail to the POCs in 'HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-1, and the Government will consider the request. |
| 58 | Round 1 | Amendments | General | How do we know what changed in the amendment? | The Summary of Changes found within the SF30 Amendment, will specify which document/section was revised. Within the revised attachment(s), the change will be indicated in blue font with a vertical line to the side of the paragraph annotating where the change occurred. |
| 59 | Round 1 | Historical Data | Historical Data | Can the government provide the historical data related to CONUS-CONUS claims (for YTD 2019, 2018, 2017 respectively, for all questions in this set)? |
a. Overall claims rate of the DoD HHG program
i. % orders with claims,
ii. % individual inventory items with claims,
iii. Number of claim incidents by claim $value buckets <$100, $100-$500, $500-$1000, $1000-$2000, >$2000
iv. Number of claims escalated to DoD claims office, avg $claim value, minimum & maximum $claim value
b. Overall claims rate and data of PPM moves (same data as requested in 3.a above)
c. Claims data requested in (3.a) above, separated by “order tendered to” type – Large National Van lines, Move managers, Regional Van lines, Other
| d. DoD analysis of claims data – top root causes of claims, past DoD actions/changes made in response to analysis, commentary & quotes from service members (personal info redacted) | No. That information is not something the Government is able to provide as complete data is not captured in the current process due to how claims filing and settlements occurs. | |||||
| 60 | Round 1 | Historical Data | Historical Data | Can the government provide the historically data related to, what % of CONUS-CONUS orders were tendered to each of the following - Large National Van lines, Move managers, Regional Van lines, Other (for YTD2019, 2018, 2017 respectively)? | Attachment 10 - Historical Data has been provided to assist Offerors in assessing historical demand and is all the historical data the Government is able to provide. | |
| 61 | Round 1 | Historical Data | Historical Data | Can the government provide the historical data for CONUS customer satisfaction scores, for YTD 2019, 2018, 2017 respectively, for the following areas. |
a. Overall customer satisfaction score of the DoD HHG program
b. Overall customer satisfaction score separated by PPM moves vs all TSP handled moves
c. Customer satisfaction score of TSP handled moves, separated by “order tendered to” type – Large National Van lines, Move managers, Regional Van lines, Other
| d. DoD analysis of customer satisfaction scores – top root causes of low satisfaction, past DoD actions/changes made in response to analysis, commentary & quotes from service members (personal info redacted) | The rating scales/performance thresholds are not the same between the current program and the new FAR based construct. We will not be releasing the current metrics as the Government does not see the correlation or relevancy to post. | |||||
| 62 | Round 1 | Historical Data | Historical Data | Will the Government post current metric performance threshold data today? | The rating scales/performance thresholds are not the same between the current program and the new FAR based construct. We will not be releasing the current metrics as the Government does not see the correlation or relevancy to post. | |
| 63 | Round 1 | Milestones | Milestones | When is contract award scheduled to occur? | The current projected award date is 15 Apr 2020. | |
| 64 | Round 1 | Contract Award | Milestones | Is the Government still on track to award the proposal in April 2020? | Yes; the current projected award date is 15 Apr 2020. | |
| 65 | Round 1 | General | N/A | Where can we find the definition of financially responsible? | In reviewing contractor responsibility, the CO must follow FAR Subpart 9.1 -- Responsible Prospective Contractors, which states that the prospective contractor must "have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them." | |
| 66 | Round 1 | General | N/A | Where is financial responsibility laid out? | It is in FAR Part 9. | |
| 67 | Round 1 | General | N/A | Are performance bonds required? | No | |
| 68 | Round 1 | General | N/A | What if the awardee walks away because they can’t sustain the contract? What about one of the Joint Venture participants in the LLC? | This question relates entirely to contract administration and not to proposal submission. The Government has several remedies available that could be pursued in the event this occured. | |
| 69 | Round 1 | General | N/A | Is there a projected release date for the Pre-Proposal attendee list? | The Pre-Proposal conference attendee list has been released in conjunction with this Q&A spreadsheet. | |
| 70 | Round 1 | Solicitation Proposals | N/A | How many parties does the Government expect to bid? | USTC has no way of knowing how many proposals will be submitted until the proposal due date/time commences. Additionally, this information is not releasable during source selection. | |
| 71 | Round 1 | General | N/A | How is a protest going to affect peak season? | Without knowing the type of protest, grounds, etc. the Government does not have enough information to answer this question. Please note that a protest does not always cause a change to the schedule. | |
| 72 | Round 1 | Page Limits | Past Performance Volume | Since the attachment 9, Small Business Participation page, is now added into the technical volume, can the page limit be increased for the technical volume. Our participation page includes over 300 small business names and the earlier requirement allowed for the contractor agreement to be included as additional documentation. | Per Amendment 01, Attachment 9 will not count against the Technical Capability Proposal page limitation. | |
| 73 | Round 1 | Forms | PPCIG | When shipping internationally, what customs documents will be provided/required? | The Personal Property Consignment Instruction Guide (PPCIG) outlines the required documents. | |
| 74 | Round 1 | Information Technology | PWS, Para 1.2.2, Information Technology (IT) Systems | Is there a technology piece that's part of the proposal i.e. software to manage relocation? | See 'HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-1, Volume II: Technical Capability Proposal, (D) Sub-Factor 4 – Information Technology (IT) Services. | |
| 75 | Round 1 | Small Business Subcontracting | PWS, Para 1.2.1.2.2, Small Business Utilization | Please define domestic verses international in regards to small business utilization. | The small business requirement is specific to services performed domestically. It would include any domestic portion of an international move. | |
| 76 | Round 1 | Small Business Subcontracting | PWS, Para 1.2.1.2.2, Small Business Utilization | Where did the 40% come from in regards to 1.2.1.2.2 Small Business Utilization? | Market research, industry input and historical data. | |
| 77 | Round 1 | Subcontracting | PWS, Para 1.2.6.13, International Shipments | Is the intent for carriage or brokerage to/for a CRAF carrier? The PWS language is vague and confusing in the PWS. | The requirement is to subcontract to a CRAF carrier; however, the CRAF carrier does not have to perform the airlift service. Compliance with Fly America Act is law and must be followed. | |
| 78 | Round 1 | Crating | PWS, Para 1.2.6.4.1, Crating | Regarding International Crating – what will be allowed? | Yes, international crating is an accessorial listed in the PWS and Pricing template services for items such as mirrors, paintings, glass or marble tabletops and similar fragile articles, and taxidermy when crates are not provided by the customer or when the customer provided crates are not serviceable. This does not include cases, footlockers, passenger bags, cartons, boxes, tri-wall containers, liftvans, and barrels that may be placed in a cargo transporter (commercial sea vans; container express cargo transporters and other transoceanic cargo transporters) for ocean or air transport. | |
| 79 | Round 1 | Transit Times | PWS, Para 1.2.6.9, Transport | The PWS indicates Appendix C as 'maximum' transit times. "from origin to destination so as to ensure delivery by the RDD as determined by maximum transit times (Appendix C)." |
However, these are the same transit times that are in the current DP3 program. The transit times are the 'minimum' not the 'maximum'. "The transit times were developed by the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) in coordination with the Service headquarters and industry and are based on actual transportation experience, capabilities, and schedules. These are the minimum times required for carriers to move shipments from origin to destination and will be used to construct required delivery dates (RDD)."
The PWS correctly states “The contractor shall transport shipments, including non-standard shipments (Appendix D), from origin to destination so as to ensure delivery by the RDD as determined by maximum transit times” These transit times have been determined to be realistic and supportable based on current program metrics.
| 80 | Round 1 | Request for RFP Extension | RFP | Because of the multiple changes coming in the amendment and the changes which will result from the Q&A at last week’s Pre-Bid Conference, we request a two week extension to the due date of the response. | Please see Amendment 01 for the proposal due date extension. |
| 81 | Round 1 | General | RFP | When are proposals due? How many proposals is the government expecting? | See Block 8 of the SF 1449 found within "HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP". USTC has no way of knowing how many proposals will be submitted until the proposal due date/time commences. Additionally, this information is not releasable during source selection. |
| 82 | Round 1 | Total Evaluated Price | RFP | How does the Government’s $20B maximum (page 8 of RFP) relate to the pricing rate table? Does the Offeror's TEP have to be under $20B? | The Offeror's TEP and the Government's price analysis is separate from the maximum found on page 8 of the RFP. The Offeror’s proposed pricing will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine prices fair and reasonable. |
| 83 | Round 1 | General | RFP, Clauses | How are you going to make sure the contractor pays his subs? | The following clauses, which will be incorporated into the contract, shall be enforced: |
52.232-40 Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors 52.219-9 (Dev) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Deviation 2018-O0018) 52.242-5 Payments to Small Business Subcontractors
| 84 | Round 1 | Subcontractor Consent Letters | RFP, Page 50 Subcontractor Consent Letters | Can the Government confirm that the subcontractor consent letters are excluded from the 20-page count limitation for Volume III? | Confirmed. See 'HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-1, General Information, Para (D). |
| 85 | Round 1 | NAICS Size Standard | SF1449 | The SF1449 includes a Size Standard of $16,500,000 as stated by TCAQ; should the Size Standard be changed to $30,000,000? | Per Amendment 01, the size standard has been revised to $30,000,000 as required by the SBA Table of Size Standards. |
| 86 | Round 1 | Amendments | SF30 | Should we submit the signed amendments when they are posted to FBO one at a time? | No, submit all amendments within your Business Proposal submission IAW 'HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-1. |
| 87 | Round 1 | General | Vendors List | Does the "Interested Vendors" list indicate vendors that have submitted a proposal? If not, would it be possible to find out who has submitted proposals for this RFP? | Offeror information is considered source selection sensitive and is not releasable information. |
| 88 | Round 1 | Page Limits | Volume II, Attachment 9, SB Participation Commitment Document | Does the movement of attachment 9 into Volume II count in the 100 page limit? | Per Amendment 01, Attachment 9 will not count against the Technical Capability Proposal page limitation. |
| 89 | Round 1 | Evaluation | Volume II, Technical Capability | What if a vendor is offering a better mobile capability, will the Offeror get extra credit? | Offerors' proposals will be evaluated against the solicitation criteria and rated accordingly. If your company has a technical approach that exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance, Offerors can submit it in their technical proposal and it could be considered a strength. The capability must be tied to one of the PWS requirements specifically identified in "HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-1, Volume II: Technical Capability Proposal. |
| 90 | Round 1 | Evaluation | Volume II, Technical Capability | When does the oral presentation occur in the source selection timeline? | Oral presentations will occur after establishment of competitive range, currently scheduled for the January 2020 timeframe. See 'HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-1, Volume II: Technical Capability Proposal, (D) Sub-Factor 4 – Information Technology (IT) Services. Also see Pre-Proposal Conference slides 50 & 54. |
| 91 | Round 1 | Evaluation | Volume II, Technical Capability & Volume IV, Price | Will discussions be over just technical capability and price? | Discussions may occur over all four proposal volumes, if necessary. |
| 92 | Round 1 | Evaluation | Volume IV, Pricing | How do you evaluate unbalanced pricing because each offeror factors in risk in different areas so pricing proposals can each look very different and seem unbalanced? | If the Government determines a rate materially unbalanced, then we will give you an opportunity to explain your rationale. Please see FAR 15.404-1(g) for regulations on unbalanced pricing. |
| 93 | Round 1 | Evaluation | Volume IV, Pricing | Are there any percentages or math formulas which are used to evaluate proposals or to determine the best value awardee? | No. |
| 94 | Round 1 | Evaluation | Volume IV, Pricing | Will evaluation be Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)? | No. IAW "HTC711-19-R-R004 GHC RFP", FAR clause 52.212-2 (a), Subjective tradeoff procedures will be utilized in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and DoD Source Selection Procedures. |
| ROUND 2 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS | |||||
| 95 | Round 2 | RFP | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 46, Page Limitations | To ensure the Offerors have page count to sufficiently address the Past Performance Reference requirements for 3 Prime Contractor references and 9 Subcontractor references, will the Government consider increasing the page limitation for Volume III – Past Performance to 30 pages (excluding the questionnaires, questionnaire log, and consent letters)? | Yes, the Government has considered the page limitation, but the Government has concluded that the page limitation is adequate, and it will not be increased. |
| 96 | Round 2 | RFP | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 46, Page Limitations | Will the Government consider allowing the Offerors to include a List of Figures, List of Acronyms, and a Cross-Reference Matrix (following the Table of Contents) for each Volume and exclude from page limitations? | Yes. This will be identified in forthcoming Amendment 02. |
| 97 | Round 2 | RFP | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 46, Page Limitations | Will the Government allow the use of 11x17 inch fold-out pages to be used for charts, graphs, diagrams, schematics, and large tables? | No. IAW Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, proposals are to be submitted electronically on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper. |
| 98 | Round 2 | RFP | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 46, Page Limitations | The Page limit Section excludes the Cover Page and Table of Contents from any page limits. If a table of exhibits (tables and figures), Glossary, and/or a Cross Reference Compliance Matrix is provided in the volume, will these also be excluded from the page limits? | Yes. This will be identified in forthcoming Amendment 02. |
| 99 | Round 2 | RFP | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 48, Volume II, Technical Capability Proposal | The instruction for Volume II: Technical Capability Proposal invites bidders to discuss the overall Technical Capability Approach however the evaluation indicates that technical ratings are specific to the Sub-Factors. Please confirm that proposal content provided prior to Subfactor 1 by way of an overall summary will be included in the evaluation scoring. | The instructions for Volume II: Technical Capability Proposal outline what the Offeror should consider when describing their approach within each sub-factor. The Offeror's approach will be evaluated only on the areas identified in each sub-factor. The Government will clarify this in forthcoming Amendment 02. |
| 100 | Round 2 | RFP | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 48-49, Volume II, Technical Capability Proposal | Subfactor 2 and 3 state “the offeror shall submit a detailed technical approach (in paragraph format)…” Please clarify that charts, diagrams, tables, etc... are still allowed in these sections? | Charts, diagrams, and/or other graphics are permitted in the Technical Capability Proposal. |
| 101 | Round 2 | RFP | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 49, Oral Presentations | Please clarify which evaluation criteria will be used to evaluate the oral presentation as there is no "Information Technology/Management" subfactor included in the EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS section of the solicitation | FAR 52.212-2 Sub-Factor 4 – IT Services will be used to evaluate all technical capability elements required by Volume II, Paragraph D of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, which includes the oral presentation. |
| 102 | Round 2 | Past Performance | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 50, Volume III, Past Performance Proposal | For current TSP providers under the DP3 program and the questionnaire which needs to be completed by USTC TSP Qualifications in regards to the past performance, will a TSP who was put in non-use due to the MPS change be rated as unsatisfactory on the questionnaire? | The Government will not provide indication of ratings on past performance questionnaires. Respondents are requested to accurately describe the contractor’s performance or situation. |
| 103 | Round 2 | Past Performance | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 50, Volume III, Past Performance Proposal | What metrics will USTC TSP Qualifications use to complete the Past Performance questionnaires? | PPQ respondents are requested to accurately describe the contractor’s performance. PPQ respondents may use any/all metrics available to them as it relates to the company's performance they are being requested to describe. |
| 104 | Round 2 | Past Performance | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 50, Volume III, Past Performance Proposal | Instruction (B) states that “Offerors shall submit past performance demonstrating the Offeror’s ability to meet small business goals under contracts for which a subcontracting plan was required within the previous three calendar years”. Please confirm that bidders can include documentation from subcontractors in response to this requirement as stated in the pre-proposal conference. | IAW Addendum to 52.212-1, the Offeror shall submit documentation which demonstrates the Offeror's ability to meet small business goals under contracts for which a subcontracting plan was required within the previous three calendar years. The submission of documentation from subcontractors is not what is being requested. |
| 105 | Round 2 | Past Performance Questionnaire | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Pg 50, Volume III, Past Performance Proposal | If a contractor plans to subcontract for multiple offerors, how should Past Performance Questionnaires be submitted? | It is an offeror's business decision on which subcontractors it will use as past performance references. Past performance questionnaires should be submitted in accordance with Volume III - Past Performance Proposal. However, the government can and will use all relevant information on past performance in evaluations. |
| 106 | Round 2 | Appendix A | Appendix A, A.2.2.1 | The solicitation references connectivity with “government managed” systems throughout. Could the Government please identify each of the specific system with which the contractor is expected to interact and identify the functionality of the system in the move process? | The Government intends for the contractor's system to integrate with MilMove and IGC. |
MilMove (or successor system) will broker the move task orders between military families, the contractor, and other Government activities, process payment/invoicing, and record / transmit survey triggers.
Integrated Data Environment/Global Transportation Network Convergence (IGC) (or successor system) is our data warehouse. The contractor will transmit all required data associated with the contract activity to the data warehouse on a cadence, not longer than 24 hours. This data will be used to record and analyze performance of the contract and the enterprise.
| 107 | Round 2 | Appendix D | Appendix D, D.5 | Are their specific any specific military locations or individual Service(s) that require in-person counseling or an onsite presence, other than those instances specified in this paragraph where task order proposals are requested? If so, would the Government please provide details concerning those requirements? | PWS, Para 1.2.5.2. does not require on-site counselors. Offerors should propose their approach to providing counseling, which may include on-site counseling at none, some or all locations. |
| 108 | Round 2 | Appendix F | Appendix F, F.3 | Could the Government please provide the functionality performed by the “Government Managed” invoice system as it relates to the successful bidder? | The invoice system will be composed of the contractor transmitting a valid payment request, which will be validated by a Government employee and subsequently paid by the Third Party Payment System. |
| 109 | Round 2 | EPA | Appendix G, EPA Schedule | Will fuel be factored/included in the EPA adjustment? | A Fuel Rate Adjustment will be applied to the domestic portion of every shipment as detailed in Appendix G. Regarding the Annual Price Adjustment, the adjustment will be based on the HIS Markit Pricing and Purchasing Industry Forecasting using a weighted adjustment percentage for each category as follows: United States, Producer Price Index (PPI), Specialized Freight Trucking (62%) (less fuel); United States, PPI, Deep Sea Foreign Transportation of Freight (22%); and United States, PPI, Warehousing and Storage (16%). Fuel is factored into all applicable areas of the Annual Fuel Adjustment except for the Specialized Freight Trucking portion. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .